David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20251442)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 29, 2025 SPR25/1442 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville – Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: On May 21, 2025, this office received the petition of Attorney Cynthia Amara, on behalf of the City of Somerville (City) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, and relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, David Chritson. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 7, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: 1. All physical and/or electronic (a) notes, (b) memos, (c) papers, (d) reports, (e) investigative files, (f) case files, (g) interview summaries, (h) investigative conclusions, (i) investigative recommendations, (j) investigative reports, (k) communications, and (l) all other public records -- regardless of physical form or characteristics -- related to David Chritson, from August 5, 2022 to April 7, 2025, made or received by [a named individual] of the Somerville Department of Racial and Social Justice (“SDRSJ”). 2. All physical and/or electronic (a) notes, (b) memos, (c) papers, (d) reports, (e) investigative files, (f) case files, (g) interview summaries, (h) investigative conclusions, (i) investigative recommendations, (j) investigative reports, (k) communications, and (l) all other public records -- regardless of physical form or characteristics -- related to David Chritson, from August 5, 2022 to April 7, 2025, made or received by [a named individual] of the SDRSJ. 3. All physical and/or electronic (a) notes, (b) memos, (c) papers, (d) reports, (e) investigative files, (f) case files, (g) interview summaries, (h) investigative conclusions, (i) investigative recommendations, (j) investigative reports, (k) communications, and (l) all other public records -- regardless of physical form or characteristics -- related to David Chritson, from August 5, 2022 to April 7, One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1442 Page 2 May 29, 2025 2025, made or received by [a named individual] of the SDRSJ[.] In a letter to this office and the City on May 25, 2025, Mr. Chritson objects to the City’s petition. Petitions for an Extension of Time and Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Relief In its petition, the City seeks to “be relieved of its duty to respond,” and argues the following in support of its request: Since at least 2021, Mr. Chritson has made more than 50 requests for records. Most requests contain a voluminous list of items. Many are repeated requests with slight changes and a change of an employee name in the request. For example, [three named individuals], etc. Based upon the repeated nature of the requests, it

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1442 Page 3 May 29, 2025 does not appear they are intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, but rather, constitute a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous and designed to harass the City and its public officials and employees. The requests contain unfounded, inflammatory accusations including, but not limited to, felonious activity and public corruption. We believe the requests are intended to intimidate and harass the employees of the City of Somerville. Based on the information provided in the City’s petition, I find that the City has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Accordingly, I am unable to grant the City’s request for relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1442 Page 4 May 29, 2025 public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the City requests to assess fees for segregation and redaction, and argues the following in support of its request: Currently, the City estimates this will take 8.3 hours to segregate and redact the records requested. This petition meets the statutory standards stated in G.L.c.66, §10(d)(iv) to be used by the Supervisor in ruling upon petitions such as this, given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law. An IT search must be conducted that is reasonably likely to lead to responsive records. Due to the extensive nature of this request, it is impossible to know the number of emails that may be produced, or the time necessary to undertake this endeavor. At this time, we have provided an estimate of 8.3 hours for this portion of the response, based on an anticipated 250 emails to review. . . . As the requested fee is necessary because this request cannot be “prudently completed without the [review and redaction],” and given that the fee is not intended to “limit, deter or prevent access” to the requested records, I respectfully request the approval of this petition. To the extent that the Supervisor of Public records denies the request to charge in excess of $25 per hour, the City seeks permission to charge $25 per hour for segregation and redaction.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1442 Page 5 May 29, 2025 In an email to this office on May 29, 2025, the City further clarifies the following: The City of Somerville anticipates redacting records pursuant to exemptions (c) and (f) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The records likely contain personal cell phone numbers and email addresses. They also likely contain witness identification and witness statements. The City may assert other exemptions after final review of the records In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Petition for Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the City states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: The hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of segregating and redaction, a paralegal, exceeds $40 per hour, but the City is only seeking to charge $40 as a demonstration of good faith. ESTIMATE: Approximately 250 emails x 2 minutes per email = 8.3 hours 8.3 hours x $40/per hour = $332.00 Based on the information provided in the City’s petition, I find the City has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. Also, as discussed above, I am unable to grant the City’s request for relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. Please be aware, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Please note, Mr. Chritson has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c).

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/1442 Page 6 May 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson